16x9 mode - DVX100
- Thread starter jimwww
- Start date
imageonepictures
Well-known member
Barry,Barry_Green said:
Are you saying 16:9 is useless in the original DVX100? What does it look like?
PaPa
Major Contributor
tghis is true
but i dont play things through my camera, i export them to dvd as 4x3, pop the dvd into my dvd player, and it plays properly on any of my widescreens, i also have the option of exporting it as a 16x9 if i want, and i think everyone else does too. (without distorting the aspect ratio, just telling it the scale )
but i dont play things through my camera, i export them to dvd as 4x3, pop the dvd into my dvd player, and it plays properly on any of my widescreens, i also have the option of exporting it as a 16x9 if i want, and i think everyone else does too. (without distorting the aspect ratio, just telling it the scale )
imageonepictures
Well-known member
I guess this is what I am wondering. Can I produce my feature at 16:9 and have it viewed properly on DVD players on TV as well as on computers?
Chris
Chris
PaPa said:
The point is, at BEST, you create useless space in your picture, and at worst, you're causing problems for yourself -- especially if you blow your framing.
Don't waste the pixels -- shoot 4:3 and crop.
volcano said:
You have to do that whether you shoot letterboxed or not if you want anamorphic widescreen.
imageonepictures
Well-known member
David,David Jimerson said:
That seems inefficient and a way of wasting a good shot as much of the frame will not be there in the final version. If I cannot get the Letterbox feature to work correctly I may opt for the anamorphic adapter.
Chris
imageonepictures said:
It's reality. You're losing the top and bottom of your shot either way. At least if you shoot full-frame and crop later, you have the option of reframing the shot in post. You won't have that option if you shoot letterbox.
What's "correctly"? It works by making the pixels on the top and bottom of the frame black and recording the image that way. If you want an anamorphic picture using letterbox, you have to crop the black bars out -- and if you do, see my comment above.
That is the only way to get full 720x480 16:9 footage out of any version of the DVX without an uprez.
PaPa
Major Contributor
David Jimerson said:
But dude, i dont thnk your getting what im saying.
Watch any behind the scenes DVD, or even if you've been on set ( only a few times ) If you see the production monitors the directors and DOP's use, the picture is 4x3, or sometimes 16x9 with a huge 2.35:1 area box in it.
They are doing the same thing, they view the entire frame, crop out an area for a 2.35:1 area and print that to a larger film stock even bigger than whats used for 4x3 area.
Now, i understand that were still filming 4x3 and cropping it to resemble 2.35:1 or other leaving the actual frame much smaller than a full sized picture at the same ratio should be. But your not throwing any footage awya as much as you may think.
You frame it on your monitors for the area and frame everything you shoot according to that, and EVEN if you misframed one of hte sequences, it can easily be corrected by adjusting the verticle up or down, so in a sense you have even more freedom.
Now imaging doing all those steps, having tiny 4x3 footage looked to 2.35:1 scale and uprezzed it ( with hopefully some technology that is capable of doing such work at DECENT quality.
But anyways, thats just how i see it in effictiveness.
PaPa, what is it that you think I'm saying? You basically just agreed with me.
A film frame is 4:3, as you say. But the equivalent of shooting in letterbox mode if you were shooting film is putting a matte over the lens so that the only part of the frame exposed is the widescreen part, and the rest of the frame (top and bottom) is left black.
No one shoots film that way.
A film frame is 4:3, as you say. But the equivalent of shooting in letterbox mode if you were shooting film is putting a matte over the lens so that the only part of the frame exposed is the widescreen part, and the rest of the frame (top and bottom) is left black.
No one shoots film that way.
PaPa
Major Contributor
volcano said:
i just did a quick little test
shot footage in 4x3, opened it into a 16x9 project and enlarged it to 134.33 ( not 133.33 as there was a thin thin black line on hte left of the frame and on top.)
then i hsot the same footage in squeeze mode and imported that into a 16x9 timeline,
here are two full res comparisons.
here is the 4x3 enlarged to 134.3 %
and here is the 16x9 squeeze shot.
sorry bout weird aspect ratio, they were both exported in a 16x9 project but somehow the .bmp was off ratio wise.
Last edited:
imageonepictures
Well-known member
Looks awesome!
Looks awesome!
Hey,
Both DVX grabs look great. So are you saying with my DVX100 (no "A") I should just shoot 4:3 and stretch to a 16:9 sequence in Final Cut Express?
Will this look alright?
Will it play right when burned to DVD or played back on TV producing black bars as if it were true 16:9?
This is what I am really wanting to know.
Chris
Looks awesome!
Hey,
Both DVX grabs look great. So are you saying with my DVX100 (no "A") I should just shoot 4:3 and stretch to a 16:9 sequence in Final Cut Express?
Will this look alright?
Will it play right when burned to DVD or played back on TV producing black bars as if it were true 16:9?
This is what I am really wanting to know.
Chris
volcano
Carbonite Member
Hi PaPa,
Thanks for the test shot...
In 4x3 shot, vertical lines seem be distorted (as if you used a wide angle lens) Something i never observed before when i do the similar enlarging my 4x3 onto an anamorphic timeline, any comment on that?
Also, were the exposures same in both shots?
Thanks for the test shot...
In 4x3 shot, vertical lines seem be distorted (as if you used a wide angle lens) Something i never observed before when i do the similar enlarging my 4x3 onto an anamorphic timeline, any comment on that?
Also, were the exposures same in both shots?
PaPa
Major Contributor
yes, the settings were the same for both shots. only difference is one is squeeze and the other was letterbox.
i dont have a grab of this but i tried taking the 4x3 letterbox shot and put it through my trial version of redgiants instantHD and i compared the squeeze to that, one thing i noticed is it does not really make things look high deff, but it can enlarge your video to almos any size while KEEping all the quality of the original, which is still really good.
i dont have a grab of this but i tried taking the 4x3 letterbox shot and put it through my trial version of redgiants instantHD and i compared the squeeze to that, one thing i noticed is it does not really make things look high deff, but it can enlarge your video to almos any size while KEEping all the quality of the original, which is still really good.
Barry_Green
Moderator
volcano said:
No, it's 4:3 video. The video signal is 4:3. Part of it has been forced to black, but the video signal is a full 720x480 4:3 frame, and will display on a 4:3 TV. If you try to display "letterbox" video on a 16:9 TV it'll just be all stretched out and everyone will look wide and fat, and there'll still be black bars visible.
John Trent
Well-known member
It's a shame Panasonic is making people jump threw hoops like this for decent 16x9. So much trouble for a digital "cinema" camera.
Blu-Ray and HD DVD players are new and have their problems and HIGH price tag$. It will be some time before this changes. There is still life left in SD.
PANASONIC, PLEASE RELEASE A 16x9 DVX.
Blu-Ray and HD DVD players are new and have their problems and HIGH price tag$. It will be some time before this changes. There is still life left in SD.
PANASONIC, PLEASE RELEASE A 16x9 DVX.
Well, they pretty much did with the HVX. The price without the P2 cards (only about $2K more) makes me surprised the DVX is still selling well.
bustak
Well-known member
To squeeze or not to squeeze!
To squeeze or not to squeeze!
Hello Fellow VideoFREAKS!
rogar-Evil(DBG):
There is a lot of talk about to squeeze or not to squeeze. The main conclusions I've been reading is not to squeeze in camera, do that in post (you'll still lose some quality, but not as bad), or go with the XL2 or HVX200. I've done some serious price hunting & the diference between the DVX & HVX is close to $3,000!
I want to go with the DVX100b, but the post production solution to convert 4:3 video to 16:9 seems like a VERY CPU intensive & a tedious avenue to travel.
My question is how bad does it look if you take squeezed in camera video & transfer it to film or watch it on a HDTV? I mean is this debate worth merit? Maybe if you're going to shoot space type sci-fi movies, or slick Hollywood wanna be action flicks it might be, but what about the indie folks, or documentary makers? Is the quality that bad?
Any direction is much appreciated, I'll be ordering a camera next week & the XL2 is a BEAST, the HVX is VERY expensive. The DVX100b is perfect, except for this 16:9 issue.
Have a nice 4th of July, don't blow off any body parts or video equipment!
To squeeze or not to squeeze!
Hello Fellow VideoFREAKS!
rogar-Evil(DBG):There is a lot of talk about to squeeze or not to squeeze. The main conclusions I've been reading is not to squeeze in camera, do that in post (you'll still lose some quality, but not as bad), or go with the XL2 or HVX200. I've done some serious price hunting & the diference between the DVX & HVX is close to $3,000!
I want to go with the DVX100b, but the post production solution to convert 4:3 video to 16:9 seems like a VERY CPU intensive & a tedious avenue to travel.
My question is how bad does it look if you take squeezed in camera video & transfer it to film or watch it on a HDTV? I mean is this debate worth merit? Maybe if you're going to shoot space type sci-fi movies, or slick Hollywood wanna be action flicks it might be, but what about the indie folks, or documentary makers? Is the quality that bad?
Any direction is much appreciated, I'll be ordering a camera next week & the XL2 is a BEAST, the HVX is VERY expensive. The DVX100b is perfect, except for this 16:9 issue.
Have a nice 4th of July, don't blow off any body parts or video equipment!
John Trent
Well-known member
Yeah, if you want 16x9 at a reasonable price, Panasonic ain't your company. There were recently three threads asking why there wasn't a 16x9 DVX, Jan ignored it all. Buy a competitors product, that's what I'm going to do. Your in IL, maybe you can go someplace to see the gear before you buy. I've been to SMS Productions. The Canon XL2 is coming down in price, it's got a cleaner image with more resolution anyway. I'm thinking of a Sony FX1E (PAL), it's cheaper than a DVX and it's HD (16x9 of course). You can shoot either 50i and spend your life de-interlacing or shoot Cineframe 25, and you'll at least equal DVX resolution. None of us will have the DVX color or gamma, but if Panasonic won't let the DVX keep up, forget them and move on.